Apple loses UK appeal, must state publicly that Samsung did not copy iPad

The ruling could affect Apple's lawsuit against Samsung in Germany.

A UK Court of Appeals has ruled that a High Court judge's decision that Samsung did not violate Apple's EU design rights for the iPad will stand, according to the BBC. Unless Apple decides to appeal to the UK's Supreme Court, it will be forced to advertise publicly that Samsung did not copy the iPad, despite Apple's vociferous claims to the contrary.

Apple had previously filed lawsuits against Samsung in the US and Germany, alleging (among other things) that Samsung copied the design of the iPad for its Galaxy Tab line of tablets. Samsung retaliated by filing a lawsuit in the UK to have its designs declared non-infringing. The UK was chosen as a tactical venue because its High Court tends to rule in favor alleged infringers over patent or design rightsholders, and because any High Court ruling would likely influence German courts' decisions.

In July, High Court Judge Colin Birss ruled that the Galaxy Tab designs were different enough not to confuse consumers. Samsung's tablets "do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design," Birss noted. "They are not as cool."

Birss later ruled that Apple would have to post a notice of the ruling on its UK website, as well as advertise in prominent UK publications that Samsung did not copy the iPad. The punishment was designed to "correct the damaging impression" Apple had given Samsung that it was a copycat.

The three-judge appeals panel agreed with Birss' stipulations. "The acknowledgment must come from the horse's mouth," the ruling said. "Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely."

Judge Sir Robin Jacob explained that the case ultimately wasn't about whether or not Samsung "copied" the iPad. "Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law," he said.

Jacob noted that Samsung's prominent logo on the front, the differences in edge shapes, and the fact that Galaxy Tabs are "altogether busier" make them different enough from Apple's registered design as a matter of law.

Samsung, for its part, continued to hammer on the notion that the global dispute is nothing more than Apple trying to lay claim to rounded rectangles. "We continue to believe that Apple was not the first to design a tablet with a rectangular shape and rounded corners and that the origins of Apple's registered design features can be found in numerous examples of prior art," a Samsung spokesperson told the BBC.

Apple did not respond this morning to our request for comment on the matter.

Promoted Comments

"On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design 000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink]."

Quote:- Colin Fowler, a litigation lawyer with international IP law firm Rouse, said: '"The publicity order is a first in such circumstances. The judge says that Apple could have avoided it had it not pressed ahead with legal action in Germany after the UK court's original EU-wide decision, and then publicised the interim injunction it obtained there.

"The court of appeal found that this will have caused commercial uncertainty in the market place and therefore the publicity order is necessary to clear up that confusion.

I don't really see how a court can force Apple to advertise that Samsung didn't copy the design patents. This verdict seems a little overreaching. I believe in forcing a company to pay a fine, but not forcing them to advertise a line of thinking that they are clearly against.

It would be funny if Apple followed the letter of the ruling and not the intent, "We're sorry for attempting to sue Samsung from making and selling anything that looked remarkably similar to our own product designs and packaging."

I don't really see how a court can force Apple to advertise that Samsung didn't copy the design patents. This verdict seems a little overreaching. I believe in forcing a company to pay a fine, but not forcing them to advertise a line of thinking that they are clearly against.

I suppose he could just slap them with a punitive libel ruling, but like the judge said, Samsung claiming innocence is not the same as Apple admitting they were wrong.

From an esteem standpoint the only way for the effects of Apple's claims to truly be reversed would be for Apple to knuckle under and let everyone know they were wrong.

"Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law,"

I'm curious as to what these 'tests' are. I would suggest two tests be taken and be done with the whole matter. First, I'd lay the two retail boxes side by side and ask a sampling of the population to point to Apple's product and Samsung's product. Unless someone has been living under a rock for the last decade, blind, or illiterate I'm fairly certain the vast majority of individuals, if not all, would select the correct packaging. Then I would hand them the two pads to examine. After a couple minutes I'm fairly certain, lawyers and the mentally impaired aside, that nobody would not know which unit was which. This would save everyone a tremendous amount of time and money. And who knows, It might even have a slight global cooling effect as it would much reduce the amount of hot air released into the atmosphere.

I don't really see how a court can force Apple to advertise that Samsung didn't copy the design patents. This verdict seems a little overreaching. I believe in forcing a company to pay a fine, but not forcing them to advertise a line of thinking that they are clearly against.

I suppose he could just slap them with a punitive libel ruling, but like the judge said, Samsung claiming innocence is not the same as Apple admitting they were wrong.

From an esteem standpoint the only way for the effects of Apple's claims to truly be reversed would be for Apple to knuckle under and let everyone know they were wrong.

In America you never have a corporation admit wrong doing, ever.

That is fine saying you were wrong, but forcing a company to advertise that is what I'm disagreeing with.

EDIT: So I'm getting voted down for an opinion and why I disagreed with the verdict. Awesome. /s My comment was not a troll comment, but a valid opinion. Grow some thicker skin.

Apple will have some fun with this. Personally, I can't wait to see how they do this, because I'm sure it'll still disparage Samsung, and be hilarious because of it.

Maybe. If they aren't careful with that, though, they might find themselves slapped with a contempt of court (or similar, IANAL) for deliberately and obviously not following the intent of the rule. But we'll see, should be hilarious in any case.

I don't really see how a court can force Apple to advertise that Samsung didn't copy the design patents. This verdict seems a little overreaching. I believe in forcing a company to pay a fine, but not forcing them to advertise a line of thinking that they are clearly against.

Having to publicly admit to telling lies is a much more appropriate punishment than being forced to pay a fine. If Apple refused to comply; punitive sanctions would be one option the court would have to punish them along with holding Apple.uk management in contempt and pursing criminal proceedings. This is moot though because as a law abiding company (and one that doesn't want to face hostile courts in future proceedings) once they run out of appeals Apple will comply with the court order.

I see quite the opposite, people say "i take responsibility" very easily, but there is no indication that "taking responsibility" was of any real consequence to them. They just say the words which carry no weight.

I see quite the opposite, people say "i take responsibility" very easily, but there is no indication that "taking responsibility" was of any real consequence to them. They just say the words which carry no weight.

You're mixing up "taking responsibility" with admitting wrongdoing.

Notice whenever you hear about a corporation involved in anything wrong there's either a settlement with no admission of wrongdoing, or they eventually lose a case and still admit no wrongdoing.

Quote:- Colin Fowler, a litigation lawyer with international IP law firm Rouse, said: '"The publicity order is a first in such circumstances. The judge says that Apple could have avoided it had it not pressed ahead with legal action in Germany after the UK court's original EU-wide decision, and then publicised the interim injunction it obtained there.

"The court of appeal found that this will have caused commercial uncertainty in the market place and therefore the publicity order is necessary to clear up that confusion.

That is fine saying you were wrong, but forcing a company to advertise that is what I'm disagreeing with.

Apple weren't just found to be wrong, they were found to have publicly advertised their wrongful accusations. That's why they have to publicly retract them. This seems quite similar to what can happen in libel/defamation cases or similar (I'm not sure of the terminology in UK law): if you're found guilty of publicly defaming someone, it would make sense that you'd have to publicly retract your defamatory claims to compensate for the damage you did.

If Apple had wrongfully accused Samsung in court, but hadn't publicly accused them outside of court, my guess is that they wouldn't have been forced to communicate about it.

I suspect we'll be seeing a lot of "they are not as cool" quotes floating around ironically. While I agree with the decision overall, I really hope that how 'cool' a judge perceives something is not the way that legal decisions get made.

As for the "must advertise a retraction" thing, I like that, but fear it is probably a bit tough to determine the scope of what said advertising must be. And whom do you leave it up to, which advertising team? I'd say Apple makes the ad, judge approves it, gives Samsung the ad with $X to spend on advertising, and Samsung is allowed to place the ad wherever it can with just that money (and not any other business partnerships). Seem like the fairest thing to do

If someone loudly makes claims that are proven false, one should also have to loudly make the apology too. Discretely settling does not undo the damage.

For the UK courts, such a decision is quite normal. There have been similar actions in the UK against the gutter press (usually celebrity obsessed tabloids) having them publicly recant the lies they've printed.

Actually this could still work out for Apple even if they were forced to admit they were wrong.Any Advertising agency can even make it out as a positive since there already is a slogan penned no less by the Judges themselves."We are sorry that Samsung isnt as cool as Apple,The Judges said so and we agree"

I don't really see how a court can force Apple to advertise that Samsung didn't copy the design patents. This verdict seems a little overreaching. I believe in forcing a company to pay a fine, but not forcing them to advertise a line of thinking that they are clearly against.

In United_States_v._Gementera Judge Vaughn Walker made the guy stand out front of a Post Office with a sandwich sign that said "I stole mail; this is my punishment". This isn't that different.

I don't really see how a court can force Apple to advertise that Samsung didn't copy the design patents. This verdict seems a little overreaching. I believe in forcing a company to pay a fine, but not forcing them to advertise a line of thinking that they are clearly against.

Courts have ways of forcing companies to do as they judge. Thay can put a daily fine until company complies to the ruling. Of course if apple really wants not to do what courts says they can keep on paying the fine until bankruptcy. (IANAL)

I don't really see how a court can force Apple to advertise that Samsung didn't copy the design patents. This verdict seems a little overreaching. I believe in forcing a company to pay a fine, but not forcing them to advertise a line of thinking that they are clearly against.

But Apple have been saying that Samsung copied and already caused damage. Public think that Samsung is copycat, but according to court they aren't. To undo the damage Apple must now say that Samsung didn't copy. This isn't about money, but about opinion that Apple created using thier PR.

"Sorry for the inconvenience caused to Samsung costumers and the general public. Please accept our offering of a free iTunes song for the following 6 months: the greatest hit from Edith Piaf: Non, rien de rien! Non je ne regrette de rien!....

Samsung should take this PR opportunity and issue some kind of side-by-side funny paper ad about friendship or healthy competition, some sort of peace offering. Nobody likes an arrogant winner, just look how greedy Apple looks trying to increase their 1 billion win in the US. Regardless if it was a correct ruling or not, it just looks greedy.

Anyone got s good primer on the historic background for design patents and their global applicability?

I can't help you about the historic background, but as for global applicability, what you want is an international application for an industrial design filed with the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization). There's more information here (edit: basically, it's a way of registering your design with each country or international organization that's a member of the Hague agreement; your design will then be protected according to local laws).

In the EU (since this article is about a UK court ruling on an EU-wide case), designs can be protected by community designs.

"On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design 000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink]."

I don't really see how a court can force Apple to advertise that Samsung didn't copy the design patents. This verdict seems a little overreaching. I believe in forcing a company to pay a fine, but not forcing them to advertise a line of thinking that they are clearly against.

The purpose is to correct libellous behavior, which is most certainly within the jurisdiction of the Law (at least, in the US, and so I presume likely in the UK as well).